This post explains who we are and how we started.
We are not affiliated with any group, political party or industry.
We have not received any funding from any outside group or individual – none.
We started as a kitchen table group of citizens concerned about what is happening across rural and regional Australia, by the harm being done by the wind industry, in partnership with governments.
Since we began in December 2012, we have added to our concerns the economic and social harm caused by rocketing power prices and unreliable power supplies, the product of heavily subsidised and intermittent wind power: the results that have played out in Australia’s wind power capital, South Australia, will cripple that State at an economic and social level for decades to come.
And over that time we have grown to enjoy the valuable input and support from a range of eminent experts, including engineers (some of whom designed and/or built Australia’s power grid), economists, health professionals and lawyers. Our sources also include several Federal MPs and the staff in their offices, as well as community leaders across the Country.
We were surprised and alarmed by how quickly the Green movement sold its soul to jump into bed with the wind industry; and floored by how malicious that class of zealots becomes whenever faced with any kind of threat to their beloved wind industry.
We are dismayed to see people being forced from their homes due to incessant, wind turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound; and horrified as we witnessed those in positions of power not only fail to help those people, but turn on these victims of a government-sanctioned, subsidy-soaked industry.
We are angered by the scope of the wind power fraud.
We are appalled by how wind industry supporters dismiss victims, ridicule those who have different opinions and vilify those who are opposed to industrial wind power generation.
We are appalled by the dishonesty of the wind industry, its supporters and those who operate within it.
We are disappointed that the many who claim to have been made sick are segregated and dismissed.
STT’s editorial team does not live near wind turbines and their homes are not threatened by wind turbines, so we reject the NIMBY charge often levelled by those who never have to live or work near industrial wind turbines, at the unfortunates who have no choice but to do so.
We aim to act as independent but compassionate observers, who have undertaken our own investigations and report on them. We think the direct and adverse impacts from industrial wind power on wind farm neighbours to be an issue of fairness and human rights.
We don’t think the wind industry collectively is a good corporate citizen. We believe this is an industry fueled by the prospect of massive government mandated and subsidised ‘profits’, hiding behind a veneer of “the common good”.
We believe wind industry proponents are hell-bent on destroying our environment, while cynically claiming to “save” it.
We believe the rampant installation of turbines across this country must be stopped now; and, from the evidence we have gathered since December 2012, we are convinced that industrial wind power does not work on any level: economic; social or environmental.
In short, we consider that subsidised wind power is the greatest fraud of all time.
181 thoughts on “About”
We live in northwestern Iowa (US) and are fighting against a wind project proposed to be built in an Airport Control Zone. “Stop These Things” has so inspired us in our fight! Thank you for your diligence and superb work! Question: We are seeking the origin of the photo of a white aircraft, crashed and lying upside down on the ground. You used the photo in a May 9, 2014 post describing the death of four South Dakota farmers who died in crash of their plane into a wind turbine in 2014.
We would like to use this photo in our campaign but want to verify 1) was this plane crash caused by a collision with a turbine and 2) if so, how could we get permission to use this photo in our educational outreach as a visual reminder that turbines and planes don’t mix!
Thanks so much for your faithful work! We’re in fight with you!
No, we learnt recently that the photo did not relate to the plane that collided with the turbine in South Dakota. When we first drafted the post, the photo was connected to an article we relied on. We will correct the post. But the substance was absolutely correct.
Green Energy Is Not ‘Green’
By Dr. Bo (Larry) Lan
Ph.D., Supply Chain Management
Assistant Professor, West Virginia University
Bachelor of Science in Physics
Bachelor of Economics in Business Administration
Part 1: Wind Power Plants to Cover 41% of USA Land in 2040. 1
Part 2: Green energy is not ‘green’. 2
Part 1: Wind Power Plants to Cover 41% of USA Land in 2040.
When it comes to renewable energy, wind energy is attracting more attention for U.S. electricity generation. In 2021, wind energy was the source of about 9.2% of total U.S. electricity generation.  And wind energy has been developed all over the world. 
But we need to ask this question today: how much land will be used for wind power plants? We have known that the average total land used per Megawatt is estimated to be 85 acres,  which means wind power has a low energy density. After doing math (see Appendix A), we can find that 32% of USA area would be covered with wind turbines to supply the total energy required by USA in 2022 and 41% of USA area in 2040! That is unpractical and unacceptable.
Although areas between turbines can be used for agriculture, a lot of areas normally cannot be used, e.g., urban areas, lakes, rivers, state or national parks, natural reservation areas, farming lands for corns and beans etc. which needs machines to work and airplanes to spread insecticides or herbicides. It would be very challenging to build so many wind turbines to cover so large areas across the U.S. It is similar for other countries and areas.
Part 2: Green energy is not ‘green’.
Wind energy not only consumes a great number of lands, but also eventually changes the climate. We should not repeat similar mistakes described in “Silent Spring” (an environmental science book by Rachel Carson in 1962). Without a comprehensive scientific study of the negative consequences of various new energy sources, we may not protect the environment but generate a “Silent Earth”.
The following analogy explains the above-mentioned negative climate impact of wind energy. Suppose down-stream City X relies on a large river to live, e.g., drinking, swimming, agriculture, etc., and it receives 100 units of water from the river. Then an up-stream City A gets away 10 units of water. And then up-stream City B gets away another 10 units of water. The left water for City X is only 80 units now. Similarly, the up-stream wind power plants are getting away energy from wind and transfer it to electrical energy. Then there will be less energy left in the wind for the downstream cities. That is the Law of Conservation of Energy. Then there will be less air current or finally no air current which is the ‘Silent Earth’. Moisture cannot be effectively transported. There may be too much rain or too little rain, the weather would become too hot or too cold in some areas. Thus, the climate will be changed. The extreme scenario will be that there will be no ‘Wind in the Willows’. Most of the electricity will finally become heat. Then the energy from wind may become heat in some other areas. That may change the circulation of air on the Earth. That means massive production of wind energy will finally change the climate rather than protecting the climate.
It’s similar to solar energy. The radiation from the sun is transferred to electricity and delivered to other places and becomes heat eventually. Then the heat map may be changed, consequently changing the climate. If we can use solar power locally, it will be less problematic than using it in a different location.
Hydroelectricity is a little bit better because the potential energy of water will become heat anyway when it flows to the sea. But reservoirs will affect the migration of fish among other problems. e.g., more diseases, gravitational changes of local structures, etc.
Additionally, wind energy is vulnerable and unstable. For example, at least one boy was killed by low temperatures due to the frozen wind power plants in the winter storm in Texas in February 2021. Such a disaster in Texas was a big lesson. After that, my family bought a house with both electricity and natural gas for winter heating in Morgantown, WV, which gives us more secure and stable energy sources. We cannot rely upon one energy source, especially the vulnerable renewal energy.
I want to raise the awareness of our society to make a more comprehensive analysis of some new techniques before we run them into a massive scale to avoid a ‘Silent Earth’. Further research by scientists of engineering and meteorology may be necessary. It is essential to establish national energy security policies for a mixture of new energy and traditional energy, e.g., coal, natural gas, oil, which would bring more opportunities to improve the economy nationally and beyond.
Therefore, we should take a discreet study on the goal of achieving “net zero emissions by 2050”. If a huge amount of traditional energy is replaced by wind or solar energy, the environment may be harmed eventually rather than be protected.
How many USA lands are there for Wind Power Plants?
Brian Hurley’s article “How Much Wind Energy is there?” gives us these facts about wind energy:
• World wind energy below a height of 1km = 1,100,000 TWh/year
• World usable wind energy 50,000 TWh (5% of total)
The above article says wind energy comes from the sun. It means if we used some solar energy then the amount should be subtracted from the total wind energy.
We also know the world total electricity in 2005 was 18,000 TWh. It is estimated about 40,000 TWh (~0.4/%) in 2045. 
1 terajoule (TJ) = 0.0002777778 tera watt hour (TWH) = 1/3,600 TWH 
The annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 million terajoules = 161,111 TWh (as of 08/08/2022). That’s 580 million trillion joules or about 13865 million tons of oil equivalents. (mtoe). 
By 2040 global energy consumption will reach 740 million terajoules = 205,556 TWh – equivalent to an additional 30 percent growth.
From 2000 to 2040, this will amount to a 77% increase in global energy consumption.
205,556 TWh is about 40% (= 205,556 TWh/50,000 TWh) of world usable wind energy. That may affect the normal flow of air, heat, humidity, etc. It may change the climate significantly. 
Electricity energy generated by a wind turbine per year
(unofficial) Wind turbines can only perform at 35–65% capacity due to wind conditions.
Then 1-Megawatt turbine produces electricity/yr = 1,000 kWh/hr*24hr*365days*50% = 4.38*10^(-3) TWh
Figure 3-5 shows a typical 2-Megawatt turbine produces electricity/yr = 6,076 MWh = 6.076*10^(-3)TWh 
Average total land used per Megawatt = 85 acres 
USA consumed about 17% of world energy in 2019 
Total wind farms area required for USA energy in 2022 = 161,111 TWh*17%/(6.076*10^(-3)TWh/2)*85 acres = 0.77*10^9 acres
Total wind farms area required for USA energy in 2040 = 205,556 TWh*17%/(6.076*10^(-3)TWh/2)*85 acres = 0.98*10^9 acres
USA total area = 3,794,100 sq mi*640acres/mi^2 = 2.4*10^9 acres
All in all, we need 32% (=0.77/2.4) of USA area to be covered with wind turbines to supply the total energy required by USA in 2022, and 41%(=0.98/2.4) of USA area in 2040.
 Electricity explained Electricity in the United States
 Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States; Paul Denholm, Maureen Hand, Maddalena Jackson, and Sean Ong, 2009- https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf
 Hurley, Brian. “How Much Wind Energy is there?”. Claverton Group. Archived from the original on 15 May 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2012.
 Jose, Zayas, et al. Enabling wind power nationwide. No. DOE/EE-1218. US Department fo Energy, 2015.
Click to access Enabling%20Wind%20Power%20Nationwide_18MAY2015_FINAL.pdf
 What is the United States’ share of world energy consumption?
I think this is called “crowing” on twitter re wind turbine syndrome: https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1638844988749492226
Does anyone have time to unpack the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research study? It was done under controlled conditions: they enlisted 37 healthy “noise sensitive” adults for three, three-night stays in the sound-proof Woolcock sleep lab.
A ‘study’ by wind industry shill, Simon Chapman is easy to unpack. Start with the fact that he is a sociologist, who has zero qualifications in medicine, acoustics, engineering or any relevant scientific discipline. He got his PhD for an essay on tobacco advertising. Only saps like Ketan Joshi even bother to refer to him, he’s an irrelevant joke. No one with any sense takes him seriously. His middle name should be audacity, see this post
I would greatly appreciate if you could post this info on your website., we have designed a flyer I could email you..
“Rally Against Inappropriate Wind Farms
19 March 2023, Sydney CBD, 3PM
People concerned about inappropriate wind farms will join with Native Forest NSW to rally against the destruction of our precious environment.
This is YOUR opportunity to be heard before the looming NSW state election.
Be there with banners representing your Community Group.
Further details to follow.
RSVP by replying to this post.”
I was just watching Cape Bridgewater testimonies on Wind-Watch. We lived in an industrial wind turbine (IWT) environment for one and one quarter years for my husband and just short of two years for me. It has been five and a half years and another animal loss since we left the wind turbines. Just last night I woke from another infrasound/EMF nightmare (which are getting more rare, thank goodness, as our bodies continue to repair the damage – which, by-the-by, our doctors’ acknowledged was caused by the IWTs). The nightmare was not a boogyman nightmare, it was a reminder of what we went through. Now, I have been through a few things in my life. Nothing, including long-haul covid, compares to the wind turbines. I never dream about any of them, either. There are so many ways to say how wrong this is. Thank you for saying them.
What was the spinner trash distance in approx. feet to your house? We are surrounded with these 2000-2200 feet from our house. Thanks, Steve
We had one 1650 feet away, two at ~1900 or so, several at half a mile, especially after I started sleeping what we called our bunker – a hole we had dug for our house we were planning to build (I slept in the back of a Dodge truck from almost the start of the turning of the blades, when I and one of our dogs, Hank, developed immediate nosebleeds). Well, the bunker was half a mile from several up north of us, about 1500 to the nearest and maybe the same from one of the 1900 ones. The bunker shielded me from some of the infrasound, or modified it, maybe similar to a basement. I would try to stay in the house but go running back out to the Dodge. My husband, who hates the cold, would join me occasionally, but by the fourth month he wasn’t sleeping in the house either.
Sorry, what memories. We launched an information campaign, then a lawsuit, then did a health study. No one seemed to pay attention. I was shocked a couple of years later when I discovered the PUC had actually paid attention to our health study and took it seriously. It didn’t stop the wind people, though and the PUC was more enamored with getting high power transmission lines to weaken our great grid than they were of protecting the farmers and other rural folk.
TMI? Everything, it seems, that I read against wind turbines I have experienced. Even the ‘ancient’ history, from the nineties when I worked for a power company who rejected wind as an effective power source (with good reason, as you and I know). It sounds like you still live near some IWTs. How long has it been? I’d love to read or hear your story. Thank you.
I LOVE LOVE stop these things. Thank you for all you do. Please tell e how I can get your articles to other interested parties against wind turbines. Currently I am waging battle at Virginia Beach VA regarding wind energy—Avangrid leased Kitty Hawk NC tract from (UGH) BOEM—now they want to bring the wind north along the VA border through our fragile Sandbridge Beach community 5 miles inland to a substation owned by city of Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach city council signed off on this deal for $$$$ in 2017 without knowledge of anyone. They sold us out. Do you know of this? I want to educate the area with your outstanding articles. Thank you for all you do. I believe in your cause wholeheartedly.
Hi Karen and thank you for your support. To share articles, you can copy the link of the full story and share using community based websites, email addresses, texts or social media groups. There are also some sharing buttons at the bottom of each story page. Some people start their own local blog and collect articles for their readers by re-blogging – such as Mothers against wind turbines https://mothersagainstturbines.com/.
We did not know about your plight, but we had heard about the projects along the Atlantic coast.
Never surrender Karen.
Your site is inspiring and full of factual and valuable resources but sadly I feel that your sage advice is falling on deaf ears. A stage has been reached in Australia where very rich individuals are using their financial resources to manipulate political and power industry outcomes. I don’t doubt that the new government’s renewables strategy will fail and high costs and blackouts will ensue and, after much pain, hopefully cause a u-turn or a transition to nuclear but the damage to the lives and finances of innocent Australians looks to be unavoidable.
I’m seeking the organisers of windfarm landowners groups, specifically White Rock Windfarm and Liverpool Range Windfarm.
From central Texas USA, sincerely wish you well in this endeavor. Last Oct. wife and I became surrounded by this spinner trash! Steve Thomas
Do you have any information on the dielectric sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) ? A forensics engineer told me it is used in the nacelles of industrial wind turbines. Thank you.
No, sure don’t.
Dielectric SF6 (Sulfur Hexafluoride):
SF6: The Truths and Myths of this Greenhouse Gas
The atmospheric concentration of the highly-potent greenhouse gas SF6 has never been higher. Fingers have been p…
SF6 Worries – The Most Potent and Persistent Greenhouse Gas – Advanced S…
The most potent and persistent greenhouse gas is neither carbon dioxide nor methane, but sulfur hexafluoride, a …
“The concentration of SF6 in Earth’s troposphere reached 10.66 parts per trillion (ppt) in 2021, rising at 0.36 ppt/year. The increase over the prior 40 years was driven in large part by the expanding electric power sector, including fugitive emissions from banks of SF
6 gas contained in its medium- and high-voltage switchgear. Uses in magnesium, aluminium, and electronics manufacturing also hastened atmospheric growth.”
[Although, at the bottom of this article a Scottish wind farm, ‘East Anglia One’ (2020), is ground-breaking in that it claims to only use SF6 in the substation.]